He needs most, if not all, of HC's already spoken for superdelegates. Good luck with that. The whole system is rigged.
Ironically if there were no super delegates, he would have zero chance to win. He is losing badly in pledged delegates and total votes. So if anything, it's rigged so that Bernie actually has a chance (albeit slim).
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,072
I'm not convinced Bernie is out of it. If you support him and you believe he is better than Trump or Clinton (easy call if you ask me), then maybe don't cave in so easily.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I'm not convinced Bernie is out of it. If you support him and you believe he is better than Trump or Clinton (easy call if you ask me), then maybe don't cave in so easily.
Who's caving? There are ideals, and votes (which I only get one of).... and then there's math. It's not close.
He needs most, if not all, of HC's already spoken for superdelegates. Good luck with that. The whole system is rigged.
Ironically if there were no super delegates, he would have zero chance to win. He is losing badly in pledged delegates and total votes. So if anything, it's rigged so that Bernie actually has a chance (albeit slim).
I'm really not sure how you could say that he would have zero chance to win without super delegates. I see this oppositely: without super delegates, the public would have seen a neck-in-neck race, as opposed to Sanders trailing by 200-300 delegates at any given point. Given the value of momentum on a campaign, this is not a small detail to ignore.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I can also guarantee something else for you - if he runs independent: A) he definitely doesn't win, and B ) gives Trump a greater chance of getting the vote from the mouth breathers of this country.
I can also guarantee something else for you - if he runs independent: A) he definitely doesn't win, and B ) gives Trump a greater chance of getting the vote from the mouth breathers of this country.
Again, I guess we learned nothing in 2000.
don't subscribe to this at all ... there are always gonna be people who vote independent ... if nader didn't run - someone else would have and the same people would have voted for that person ...
He needs most, if not all, of HC's already spoken for superdelegates. Good luck with that. The whole system is rigged.
Ironically if there were no super delegates, he would have zero chance to win. He is losing badly in pledged delegates and total votes. So if anything, it's rigged so that Bernie actually has a chance (albeit slim).
I'm really not sure how you could say that he would have zero chance to win without super delegates. I see this oppositely: without super delegates, the public would have seen a neck-in-neck race, as opposed to Sanders trailing by 200-300 delegates at any given point. Given the value of momentum on a campaign, this is not a small detail to ignore.
So you are saying the outcomes would have been different, but people are only voting for Clinton because she is winning. That's not an empirical argument and it flies in the face of the truisms of this campaign. Bernie wins white states and caucuses, Hillary wins diverse states and primaries.
Regardless, my point is about today. Without SDs, where the numbers stand today, Bernie would not have a legitimate chance. He can't win close to 70 percent going forward.
I can also guarantee something else for you - if he runs independent: A) he definitely doesn't win, and B ) gives Trump a greater chance of getting the vote from the mouth breathers of this country.
Again, I guess we learned nothing in 2000.
I don't listen to anyone who guarantees anything especially when it comes to politics.
He needs most, if not all, of HC's already spoken for superdelegates. Good luck with that. The whole system is rigged.
Ironically if there were no super delegates, he would have zero chance to win. He is losing badly in pledged delegates and total votes. So if anything, it's rigged so that Bernie actually has a chance (albeit slim).
I'm really not sure how you could say that he would have zero chance to win without super delegates. I see this oppositely: without super delegates, the public would have seen a neck-in-neck race, as opposed to Sanders trailing by 200-300 delegates at any given point. Given the value of momentum on a campaign, this is not a small detail to ignore.
So you are saying the outcomes would have been different, but people are only voting for Clinton because she is winning. That's not an empirical argument and it flies in the face of the truisms of this campaign. Bernie wins white states and caucuses, Hillary wins diverse states and primaries.
Regardless, my point is about today. Without SDs, where the numbers stand today, Bernie would not have a legitimate chance. He can't win close to 70 percent going forward.
As usual I disagree, in fact I think the exact opposite. If there were no superdelegates, who are bought and paid for by Clinton's camp well ahead of time, Sanders' chances would be tenfold.
He needs most, if not all, of HC's already spoken for superdelegates. Good luck with that. The whole system is rigged.
Ironically if there were no super delegates, he would have zero chance to win. He is losing badly in pledged delegates and total votes. So if anything, it's rigged so that Bernie actually has a chance (albeit slim).
I'm really not sure how you could say that he would have zero chance to win without super delegates. I see this oppositely: without super delegates, the public would have seen a neck-in-neck race, as opposed to Sanders trailing by 200-300 delegates at any given point. Given the value of momentum on a campaign, this is not a small detail to ignore.
So you are saying the outcomes would have been different, but people are only voting for Clinton because she is winning. That's not an empirical argument and it flies in the face of the truisms of this campaign. Bernie wins white states and caucuses, Hillary wins diverse states and primaries.
Regardless, my point is about today. Without SDs, where the numbers stand today, Bernie would not have a legitimate chance. He can't win close to 70 percent going forward.
As usual I disagree, in fact I think the exact opposite. If there were no superdelegates, who are bought and paid for by Clinton's camp well ahead of time, Sanders' chances would be tenfold.
Based on what? How many SDs are there? And how many votes had she racked up? What is the argument, that people only voted for her because of the SDs?
He needs to win something like 65% of the remaining pledged delegates. He won with 51% last night. So, I believe, the long odds of him winning actually got worse
He needs to win something like 65% of the remaining pledged delegates. He won with 51% last night. So, I believe, the long odds of him winning actually got worse
Much worse.
Statistics can be applied in anyone's favor, as long as they cherry pick what they want to explain it how they want. But math is never wrong.
And I find it funny that people think that Hillary isn't liberal/left-leaning. Seems like you have to be in a goddamn guerrilla coalition to be considered "liberal" here, haha.
I can't wait for the convention here, though. Gonna be some interesting shit. Thank God I'm biking every day now with the weather being better, and won't have to take the subway.
Maybe this will encourage a few here to reconsider, Free. Thanks for posting it!
An important point worth nothing: “Democratic super-delegates might have to rethink” their support of Hillary Clinton given how dramatically better Sanders fares in head-to-head match-ups against Donald Trump.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Maybe this will encourage a few here to reconsider, Free. Thanks for posting it!
An important point worth nothing: “Democratic super-delegates might have to rethink” their support of Hillary Clinton given how dramatically better Sanders fares in head-to-head match-ups against Donald Trump.
One can dream I suppose. The premise continues to be false. Do you think Trump has never attacked Bernie because he doesn't have anything to say about Bernie? I read in exit polling from WV that 4 in 10 Sanders supporters would not support Sanders against Trump in a general. This is why you don't have open primaries.
Comments
The whole system is rigged.
I don't agree that math is always accurate so I don't agree with everything about this video, but you asked!
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
But, anyway, yeah, math - no chance. Wish he did, but he does not.
Again, I guess we learned nothing in 2000.
Regardless, my point is about today. Without SDs, where the numbers stand today, Bernie would not have a legitimate chance. He can't win close to 70 percent going forward.
Perhaps they meant people playing with the numbers .....
Statistics can be applied in anyone's favor, as long as they cherry pick what they want to explain it how they want. But math is never wrong.
And I find it funny that people think that Hillary isn't liberal/left-leaning. Seems like you have to be in a goddamn guerrilla coalition to be considered "liberal" here, haha.
I can't wait for the convention here, though. Gonna be some interesting shit. Thank God I'm biking every day now with the weather being better, and won't have to take the subway.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/05/11/bernie-sanders-could-still-win-democratic-nomination-no-seriously
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/bernie-sanders-could-still-win-the-democratic-nomination----no-seriously_b_9898436.html
An important point worth nothing:
“Democratic super-delegates might have to rethink” their support of Hillary Clinton given how dramatically better Sanders fares in head-to-head match-ups against Donald Trump.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon